Can Liberal Democracy Survive COVID-19?

Even if Western leaders manage to limit the COVID-19 outbreak’s immediate fallout, it will mean little without forward-looking efforts to strengthen liberal-democratic systems from within. Such a failure would could well amount to handing China victory in the global contest of ideas that is now underway.

MADRID – By some mix of cruel irony and remarkable prescience, the theme of last year’s Venice Biennale – the biennial art exhibition’s 58th incarnation – was: “May you live in interesting times.” The line, purportedly a translation of an old Chinese curse, was meant to highlight the precariousness of life in this dangerous and uncertain age. With the COVID-19 pandemic ravaging the world, and credible global leadership nowhere to be seen, that reality has become impossible to ignore.

Venice has always been a monument to human ingenuity. Situated in the most improbable of locations, it rose to prominence as a hub of trade and commerce, supported by the institutions that underpinned the first era of globalization. It was thus a forebear of liberal internationalism, and remains a symbol of reason, humane values, and breathtaking artistic achievement.

Today, Venice, like most of Europe, stands empty. Moreover, the values and possibilities it represents are nowhere to be seen – on the continent or beyond. Instead, the world is seemingly at the mercy of the United States and China, which appear more concerned with upholding their great-power competition than resolving the COVID-19 crisis.

This competition for global primacy, which has been escalating for years, is also a clash of models. The Chinese system privileges the social harmony that lies at the heart of Confucianism. The American – and, indeed, the Western – system emphasizes the primacy of the individual, in the tradition of the Enlightenment.

The response to the COVID-19 crisis has thrown this difference into sharp relief. In China, local authorities initially suppressed information about the virus, in order to protect the Communist Party’s reputation. When that proved untenable, the government implemented draconian lockdowns. It has since been pushing the narrative (despite dubious data) that these measures have succeeded in curbing the virus’s spread in China and are crucial to an effective response anywhere.

In the US, by contrast, the crisis has been characterized by the tension among the individual rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” upheld in the Declaration of Independence as stated. The pandemic threatens life, but the response needed to protect life would undermine liberty; the pursuit of happiness will take a hit either way. No crisis in recent memory has posed such an all-encompassing challenge to the pillars of Western liberalism.

Subscribe to Project Syndicate

Enjoy unlimited access to the ideas and opinions of the world's leading thinkers, including weekly long reads, book reviews, and interviews; The Year Ahead annual print magazine; the complete PS archive; and more – all for less than $2 a week.

Subscribe Now

Of course, there have been threats to life before. The specter of a nuclear exchange during the Cold War implied the possibility of casualties far in excess of even the worst predictions for the COVID-19 pandemic. But the risk was largely theoretical. And the logic of mutually assured destruction – if one side launched a nuclear attack, both sides would perish – proved to be a powerful deterrent.

In the case of COVID-19, by contrast, the risk is tangible and specific. People are contracting this virus, and people are dying alone, forced to say goodbye to their loved ones over video calls. There is no cure, let alone a vaccine, and it is so contagious that health systems are becoming overwhelmed. This has generated a simultaneous sense of urgency and helplessness to which the Cold War does not compare.

Western democracies have also curtailed liberty during previous crises. Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the US Patriot Act drastically expanded law enforcement’s surveillance and investigative powers. More recent terrorist violence in Europe has led to similar developments.

But, again, the threat posed by the COVID-19 crisis is far more immediate and palpable. Surreptitious wiretapping is one thing; restricted freedom of movement is quite another. So far, lockdowns, quarantines, and border controls have been broadly accepted as necessary, but the longer they endure, the more they will erode the foundations of free, liberal societies.

Thomas Jefferson’s appealing but amorphous idea of the pursuit of happiness is particularly vulnerable. In recent decades, as unbridled capitalism has seized the public consciousness, happiness has come to be equated with economic security and prosperity. It is a shallow metric, but how contentment is measured in gross terms today will define the crisis response.

That response is causing economies to a grind to a halt. In the US, 6.6 million people applied for unemployment benefits last week, after the longstanding record of 695,000, set in 1982, was overwhelmed by the 3.3 million claims the previous week. As the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis in Europe showed, mass unemployment and belt-tightening can be highly disruptive, as they fuel mistrust of existing institutions.

Together with threats to life and limits on liberty, the coming economic crisis will deepen doubts about Western liberalism and weaken its position in the global contest of ideas that is currently underway. It is thus imperative that Western leaders not only limit the spread of COVID-19, but also foster social cohesion, devise a credible path back toward growth and normalcy, and reinvigorate the values and institutions that underpin liberal democratic societies. To succeed, they will need to revive the ethos that citizenship entails both duties and rights. The scenes of heroism by medical professionals, service workers, and community members that the pandemic has produced should help to advance this objective.

Even if Western leaders manage to limit the COVID-19 outbreak’s short-term fallout, it will mean little without forward-looking efforts to strengthen liberal-democratic systems from within. Such a failure would leave the West vulnerable to a China that, accurately or not, is presenting its model as the best solution to the challenges of these interesting times.

Support High-Quality Commentary

For more than 25 years, Project Syndicate has been guided by a simple credo: All people deserve access to a broad range of views by the world's foremost leaders and thinkers on the issues, events, and forces shaping their lives. At a time of unprecedented uncertainty, that mission is more important than ever – and we remain committed to fulfilling it.

But there is no doubt that we, like so many other media organizations nowadays, are under growing strain. If you are in a position to support us, please subscribe now.

As a subscriber, you will enjoy unlimited access to our On Point suite of long reads and book reviews, Say More contributor interviews, The Year Ahead magazine, the full PS archive, and much more. You will also directly support our mission of delivering the highest-quality commentary on the world's most pressing issues to as wide an audience as possible.

By helping us to build a truly open world of ideas, every PS subscriber makes a real difference. Thank you.

Interesting article. Necessity is the mother of invention. We have to admit that innovation occurs the most in a free society where people are rewarded for the efforts. Government that is not obtrusive in our lives is the best system only because it empowers citizens to be responsible for themselves. This is the essence of freedom. You are not free when government owns everything or most of everything because it will always encroach in your life. Bowing down to those in power is not freedom. Having to watch what you say is not freedom. Anyone that thinks freedom of thought, creativity and innovation arise in an Authoritarian dictatorship needs to look at history. Yes, these are trying times, over-reaction and fear are the highest I ever ever seen in my lifetime. I am not sure why so many people live in fear in the US. This is unfortunate for them, because living in fear is what kills the mind. People need to grow a spine in our society and keep moving forward, hence you must overcome fear. Innovate as much as possible, learn as much as possible, stop crying like little babies and pick yourselves up. I had the virus and I can tell you that my experience was similar to many with the common symptoms and I was out sick for 9 days(not in hospital though, because I refuse to, as it is only a last resort, as it should be for everyone). If you are strong, you will get better, but do not take it lying down (literally) when you get it. Stop living in fear, life has to go on and most people will survive which can only make them stronger. It is not about being emotionless, it is about being adaptable and courageous. Everyone must overcome fear with calm logical thinking. Everyone must stop making decisions based solely on emotion because most mistakes are made in critical thinking when emotions are to involved.

There is a difference between the media driven hysteria and fear. Fear is both understandable and very necessary. Your experience was thankfully a good one but the sober, matter of fact reports from doctors and nurses (as opposed to the sensationalist stuff teased out by the media) are harrowing. If C-19 takes hold patients suffer horribly and the way they die is miserable. There is no cure. It is a lottery. "Being strong" is not a protection. It may improve your odds but there are enough deaths of fit, healthy, younger adults to make it clear that your best chance of survival is not to get infected to the point of anything more than a mild sickness. Add in the awful thought that you might infect someone who has a worse outcome or dies, and fear is healthy and necessary. What is not healthy or constructive is panic and recrimination (or this article's gloomy self flagellation).

This comment was removed by a moderator. Replies to this comment may also be deleted. Please note that we moderate comments to ensure the conversation remains topically relevant. We appreciate well-informed comments and welcome your criticism and insight. Please be civil and avoid name-calling and ad hominem remarks.

Not a very insightful article. Palacios strings together shallow truisms and makes no attempt to judge the actual performance of democracies vs totalitarian systems.

Propaganda aside, China's health system was overwhelmed by C-19. We were impressed by the 10 day hospital but the reality was that patients are dying in corridors in hospitals, many sick people were denied access and died at home, and doctor were subject to abuse and attack by patients and their relations. Social and political order frayed, shocking the CCP which has responded with a massive propaganda campaign to denigrate the performance of other countries.

The true level of infection and deaths may never be known but it was clearly much higher than the CCP proclaims - it is still distorting the figures. The state refused all private initiatives to help. Reports from Wuhan say that residents are anything but grateful now the lockdown has been lifted. Russia decided there was a problem until there was one, Iran is hopelessly conflicted as its power bases squabble over what to do.

Democracies? Italy and maybe Spain were certainly at breaking point but adapted and survived. Citizens and private business jumped in: making masks, ventilator parts, fashioning multiple connections, donating and building beds and volunteering. Italy's capacity to handle the crisis grew in no small part thanks to those initiatives. The same story is being repeated across Europe and the US and Canada. Note that many countries created huge emergency hospitals in less than 10 days. Oddly this receives none of the admiration and praise that the Chinese encouraged for their effort in Wuhan.

Meanwhile Singapore, Taiwan, HK, Korea and Japan have all handled the crisis far better than China. Even Latin America has performed far above what anyone could have hoped even if there are exceptions like Ecuador.As for popular will, the striking thing has been how most people have accepted and supported the measures. It took time for the severity of the crisis to sink in but now while there are some sophists who debate civil liberties, most are on board. That won't last beyond 6, maybe 8 weeks but that is enough time, especially if countries get testing and tracing fixed. There has also been a solid socio-economic response from governments.

There will be no doubt exhaustive and noisy investigations into what happened and who messed up but that is after all the accountability that underpins democracy. So far from worrying about liberal democracy's survival, Palacios might ask what the long term consequences will be for the CCP, Iran et al, and how democracies can build on the positives of the experience.

The enemy (and the reason for the severe US vulnerability to COVID-19) is the 'Fatalism of Capitalism'. Free Market capitalists revere the system for its motivational aspects to produce a high level of economic production and distribution. But in times of economic contraction like the present the system falls apart. Institutions that were profitable in times of economic expansion fail into bankruptcy and the recovery back to expansion is troubled then by the lack of institutional support (since they are defunct). This is the well-known 'Boom and Bust Cycle'.

Wall Street and Globalism worship this cycle as the opportunity to get rich if you are a smart investor, i.e. buy and sell at the right time, start a business and let it fail at the right times. For these investors 'Capitalist Fatalism' (the philosophy that there is no other viable economic system and that its continued collapse and rebirth is unavoidable) is the source of their wealth. The workers and the poor take the hit, while the wealthy divest their money during downturns and reinvest it at the bottom of the bust phase to grow their wealth during the following boom.

Capitalist Fatalism won't work this time, and the sharks feeding off it won't succeed this time.

Depends whether English is the language of choice, or Chinese is the language of choice by the most people globally. And, who/what is the enforcer/controller. Arabic could still be the default grabber, but that will be quite messy for the most slaves globally.

Won't it be determined by who gets to call the most shots, and with what currency of any of the functional transactional media still left for consumers to access at any level of consumption using mis-defined parameters, terrible logistics, and absolutely no state tax revenues? Who's left standing on the chess board, the king, the queen, or an unlikely pawn ruling chaos theory of no real state? The answer is: That is a good move, if you can walk away with air, and get away with calling nothing something in the process.

WOW. And, that Patriot Act, still on the books, gets to get used very strategically with some of the most inappropriate intent, to accomplish some of the most inappropriate strategized and real illegal results. Of course, that all depends on the beholder.

Ah, yes. There is now the most formidable of all threats before us. The enemy has been defined. The enemy is COVID-19. Apparently nothing else worked for the one definition of the most formidable of all as "THE ENEMY". What a great conclusion for whoever gets to profit from mass hysteria.

Here's a couple of links to offset pre-packaged hysteria, as the only product available to still buy, if you can still afford to, if you are also unfortunately a pre-defined consumer.

New models for capitalism can be pretty lousy for any thing.

https://medium.com/@antonymueller/fooled-9de24aa66227

Best one liner of the next link is: "“Outside politics, those who stay home stay behind.”

The COVID-19 is a natural phenomenon. It has been very disrupitive and has caused already lots of social and economic damage and will cause more. But reseachers will find medicines and it will eventually be overcome, like with other pandemics.

For the EU this crises may offer an unscheduled opportunity.While the economy is down now it is perhaps a good time to restructure the EU.The EU has become a ship dead in the water. It does not directly sink because of it's huge market. But the ship does not go anywhere, because there is disagreement on where to go.In recent discussions on the EU budget it appeared that 5 members wanted to protect the border ( after 30 years) and invest in research/ increasing competitiveness, the other 22 wanted to invest, in the old economy, like agriculture.Some, like Italy and France, want Brussels to issue bonds. This meaning switching on the money press and devaluate the Euro. However they have failed to restructure their own economy, which is the only solution to improve their situation. This debate has been going on for 20 years now, while unbiased experts have declared that the EU is on an unsustainable route.A plan to develop a destination for the ship was recently cancelled.

It is now time to bring the EU ship in motion again.Where to ? Go back to the common market when the EU did well.We know how that worked, it was then called the EEC.

The Euro has to be replaced. Every member can issue their own currency. Which is the natural thing.However when members have similar economies they could issue their common currency.Cooperation among the sovereign members will be encouraged, if desired by support of the EU commission.Around the EU President an European Management Team is to be formed comprising of Germany, France and 4 representatives of groups of smaller members.A brief constitution will be written comparable to the American Constitution.Since everybody is too focussed on the existing EU, my suggestion would be to hire outsiders for fresh views.( recommended: The Euro by J.E. Stiglitz: Eurotragedy by A. Mody ).

Ana Palacio fears the West would not learn from the current global health crisis and emerge stronger. Although it is important to “limit the COVID-19 outbreak’s short-term fallout,” Western leaders also need to look forward and “strengthen liberal-democratic systems from within.” Any failure would only “leave the West vulnerable to a China that, accurately or not, is presenting its model as the best solution to the challenges of these interesting times.”The author says COVID-19 has laid bare the West's vulnerability, when it is “seemingly at the mercy" of the United States and China. The two bitter rivals "appear more concerned with upholding their great-power competition than resolving the COVID-19 crisis.” The US-China rivalry is taking a toll on the rest of the world. Their “competition for global primacy, which has been escalating for years, is also a clash of models.”China has apparently contained the spread of the virus thanks to its system emphasizing “the social harmony that lies at the heart of Confucianism. The American – and, indeed, the Western – system emphasizes the primacy of the individual, in the tradition of the Enlightenment.” As infections outside China began to rise, the message from Beijing was that the West have been too slow to react and not done enough to contain the pandemic. Chinese leaders urged the West to learn from their draconian measures as Europe became the epicentre of the health crisis.As the US surpasses China with the highest number of infections, the author says this crisis has been characterised “by the tension” among Americans who see their rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” upheld in the Declaration of Independence as sacrosanct. “The pandemic threatens life, but the response needed to protect life would undermine liberty; the pursuit of happiness will take a hit either way. No crisis in recent memory has posed such an all-encompassing challenge to the pillars of Western liberalism.”The author points out that “Western democracies have also curtailed liberty during previous crises. Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the US Patriot Act drastically expanded law enforcement’s surveillance and investigative powers. More recent terrorist violence in Europe has led to similar developments.” The irony is that there are Americans and Europeans - viewers and readers of right-wing media, who are science deniers - trivialising the threat posed COVID-19, and defying measures to limit social gatherings and impose quarantines and lockdowns. They call the pandemic a “hoax”. Yet they take terrorist attacks carried by Islamists far more seriously, demonising Muslims. Indeed, they do not see the coronavirus itself as a danger, but people – especially immigrants. Their immediate response are travel bans and border controls. The author says, apart from “threats to life and limits on liberty, the coming economic crisis will deepen doubts about Western liberalism and weaken its position in the global contest of ideas that is currently underway. It is thus imperative that Western leaders not only limit the spread of COVID-19, but also foster social cohesion, devise a credible path back toward growth and normalcy, and reinvigorate the values and institutions that underpin liberal democratic societies.”If they fail, we all face a serious risk of succumbing to the new wave of anti-globalisation and protectionism that are on the rise. Elements in the US are already pushing hard with rhetoric geared towards the economic decoupling of the US from China. Trump has been referring to the virus as the “Chinese virus”. We, in Europe, need to stay out of Trump’s war with China, and hope for his removal in the November elections. A new leader would opt for a less confrontational approach in foreign policy. Meanwhile, the author urges us “to revive the ethos that citizenship entails both duties and rights. The scenes of heroism by medical professionals, service workers, and community members that the pandemic has produced should help to advance this objective.” The problem is that European leaders do not seem to learn from history, although our history is littered with crises. Instead of taking on problems, they prefer to muddle through. It is interesting to see whether Chinese leaders will avoid a repeat of any contagious disease outbreak that could further undermine its economy and system of government. If they do, the world will be spared from another deadly pandemic.

"In China, local authorities initially suppressed information about the virus, in order to protect the Communist Party’s reputation."

If local authorities initially suppressed information about the virus, they certainly did not do so in order to protect the Communist Party’s reputation. They did so to cover their asses, as local authorities do everywhere.

The Communist Party's reputation needs no protection, and certainly not at the local level of Wuhan. The Party's job is to guide and lead China to safety from foreign attack (which they have done) and towards a xiaokang society–which they will attain next year.

Next year, for the first time in history, every Chinese in the bottom 50% income bracket will own a home and have an income, plenty of food and clothes, better education than Americans, safe streets, health insurance, a pensions, and old age care.

By then, 300,000,000 urban Chinese will have more net worth and disposable income than the average American, their mothers and infants will be less likely to die in childbirth, their children will graduate from high school three years ahead of American kids and live longer, healthier lives and there will be more drug addicts, suicides and executions, more homeless, poor, hungry and imprisoned people in America than in China.

That's why the Communist Party needs no protection from Wuhan municipal authorities.

I don't know what the answers are here, but one thing I do know: the global lockdowns in their various forms in most countries are not the answer. They are just panic, causing value destruction on an unprecedent scale. A few weeks of this will mean hundreds of millions of lives thrown into destutution for potentially a couple of decades. Because no matter how much they may pretend otherwise, governments cannot support the majority of their populations for months on end, where most businesses are shuttered and most people are not working. Governments can, obviously, dig much deeper than individuals and companies, but they too get to the end of their road. Assuming a rate of 2%-3% of all businesses dying per week of lockdown, which is realistic, then beyond about 6 weeks there will be nothing left to come back to, or from. It is not just swathes of businesses within sectors that will disappear, never to reopen; it is entire sectors and industries that will die forever.

And for all the talk of cooperative actions and so on, once the money and resources start to run out, a nasty, snarling, mood would take a grip and it will be every country for itself. If you doubt this, look at how Greece was thrown under the bus, because no richer nations were willing to take a small hit to their own lifestyles, and that was a crisis a magnitude smaller than the current one.

What can be done instead? I don't know, and it is difficult to suggest anything without sounding cold-blooded, even though the truth is that the attempt to protect lives will likely have a much higher cost in lives in the long run. Perhaps, governments everywhere should commandeer all hotels and isolate the old and those with underlying conditions in comfort there, than the present lockdowns. That might cost hundreds of billions, but the current solution will see trillions burnt away, with a much worse eventual outcome.

The Black Plague led to the destruction of feudalism and opened the way to Renaissance and eventual industrial development. May be the current "dog-eat-dog" capitalism must die and bring about a better sustainable and equitable economic system. May be this is the moment... and the little virus the catalyst

New Comment

It appears that you have not yet updated your first and last name. If you would like to update your name, please do so here.

Pin comment to this paragraph

After posting your comment, you’ll have a ten-minute window to make any edits. Please note that we moderate comments to ensure the conversation remains topically relevant. We appreciate well-informed comments and welcome your criticism and insight. Please be civil and avoid name-calling and ad hominem remarks.

Mass protests over racial injustice, the COVID-19 pandemic, and a sharp economic downturn have plunged the United States into its deepest crisis in decades. Will the public embrace radical, systemic reforms, or will the specter of civil disorder provoke a conservative backlash?

For democratic countries like the United States, the COVID-19 crisis has opened up four possible political and socioeconomic trajectories. But only one path forward leads to a destination that most people would want to reach.

Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. If your email exists in our system, we'll send you an email with a link to reset your password. Please note that the link will expire twenty-four hours after the email is sent. If you can't find this email, please check your spam folder.